Reality is MORE than what Maths can Represent by Lorraine Ford

Hi Lorraine,

I have enjoyed reading your essay.There are lots of passages I could talk about. here's one. You wrote. "It is necessary that "the universe" apprehends itself from within i.e. from a subjective viewpoint from within. So there exists no external-to-the-universe objective-viewpoint information; and there is also no internal-to-the-universe objective-viewpoint information about reality, though in practice a symbolic (i.e. written or spoken) representation of subjective viewpoints that have collective agreement and scientific confirmation is labelled "objective". The ordinary reality of chairs and trees and people and animals is also agreed objective reality, although this information is always subjectively apprehended."

It is necessary that components of the universe with awareness apprehend it subjectively (from within) but is it necessary for the universe as a whole to have subjective self awareness? I think it can be all that it is without that self awareness co-existing. A source object exists from which information can be transmitted potentially giving all possible viewpoints even if they are not produced, eg. no light, no observers. In "Shut up and Calculate" Max Tegmark says ,..... it helps to distinguish between two ways of viewing our external physical reality. One is the outside overview of a physicist studying its mathematical structure, like a bird surveying a landscape from high above; the other is the inside view of an observer living in the world described by the structure, like a frog living in the landscape surveyed by the bird." I think there is something missing which is inside but transcending the singular perspective formed from received data. Which is something like (but not quite) the ocean's relationship to its constituents or the "soils" to it's. Not from here or there looking here or there but -as everything is-, everywhere at once, from everywhere without the distortion of data transmission times. That is objective absolute truth which is independent of impoverished individual perspectives based upon a sub sets of information. I strongly believe that truth is absolute and independent of subjective interpretation and a complete model of physical reality requires that component.

In your conclusion you write "... the perfectly valid, scientifically confirmable, mathematical representation of aspects of reality ....." I wonder what you are referring to here. Is it the space time continuum? Or did you have something else in mind or are you being intentionally vague?

Lots of food for thought in your essay. I hope others enjoy reading it as much as I did.

Kind regards Georgina

Dear Lorraine,

I read your essay with great interest. I totally agree with you: "Reality can not be understood as a mathematical entity: reality is more than what the maths can represent." Equation - are intellectual "clippings" from being whole. My high score. Mathematics and physics require the ontological justification (basification). Now it is necessary to look at the world as a whole, as one looks poets and philosophers:

It is by a mathematical point only that we are wise,

as the sailor or the fugitive slave keeps the polestar in his eye;

but that is sufficient guidance for all our life.

We may not arrive at our port within a calculable period,

but we would preserve the true course. (Henry David Thoreau, 1854)

I invite you to see and appreciate my analysis of the philosophical foundations of mathematics and physics, the method of ontological constructing a new basis of knowledge and new unifying paradigm - the maternal generating structure, "La Structure mère" as the ontological framework, carcass and foundation of knowledge, the core of which - the ontological (structural, cosmic) memory.

Kind regards,

Vladimir

Origami folding is NP-hard. (The P?=NP question is one of the six remaining Clay Mathematics Institute millennium challenges the overcoming of which earns you a million bucks US, so solve it now while the dollar's strong and inflation's essentially nonexistent.) Anyway the art or craft of origami is practiced all the time and often with breathtaking brilliance. The problem is that it appears not to be theoretically possible (i.e., not mathematically describable or algorithmically compressible), even though there's plenty of cogent text telling you in detailed empirical how to do it. Interesting.

Dear Lorraine,

As always, I find myself in full agreement with your perspective despite differences in the way we define "information". We essentially agree on the experiential nature of reality, which is not present in symbols or equations, but only in conscious perception.

I especially liked your reminder that "Whether we use our brains, or use a computer to do the work for us, we have to expend energy when attempting to find solutions to mathematical equations", whereas actual reality occurs without 'equation solving' or other 'behind-the-scenes' processes. Reality just 'goes-with-the-flow'.

And...

"Finally, non-algebraic numbers like pi and e also require physical explanation, if we are ever to stop outsourcing everything that is difficult and awkward to a Platonic realm."

And...

"Not many people would confuse a stick figure representation of a person with an actual person... But many [mistake mathematical representation for] reality."

First, I think you would enjoy David Berlinski's book, The Devil's Delusion, in which he quotes Nobel laureate Steven Weinberg: "The more comprehensible the universe becomes, the more it also seems pointless." Berlinski says "He had a point. The arena of the elementary particles - his arena - is rather a depressing place, and if it resembles anything at all it rather resembles a florescent-lit bowling alley seen from the interstate, tiny stick figures in striped bowling shirts jerking up and down in the monstrously hot and humid night. What is its point?"

Second, I hope you will enjoy my essay, which treats an over-simplified picture of spin leading to a metaphysical stance on 'non-locality'. As this picture has been the standard view for two generations of physicists, there's considerable resistance toward a new view of reality, based on a more realistic model. I look forward to any response you might have.

Warm regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Dear Ms. Ford,

I have no wish to be disrespectful to you or to your essay, but I think abstract mathematics and abstract physics have nothing to do with how the real Universe is occurring for the following real reason:

Do let me know what you think about this: This is my single unified theorem of how the real Universe is occurring: Newton was wrong about abstract gravity; Einstein was wrong about abstract space/time, and Hawking was wrong about the explosive capability of abstract NOTHING. Proof exists that every real astronomer looking through a real telescope has failed to notice that each of the real galaxies he has observed is unique as to its structure and its perceived distance from all other real galaxies. Each real star is unique as to its structure and its perceived distance apart from all other real stars. Every real scientist who has peered at real snowflakes through a real microscope has concluded that each real snowflake is unique as to its structure. Real structure is unique, once. Unique, once does not consist of abstract amounts of abstract quanta. Based on one's normal observation, one must conclude that all of the stars, all of the planets, all of the asteroids, all of the comets, all of the meteors, all of the specks of astral dust and all real objects have only one real thing in common. Each real object has a real material surface that seems to be attached to a material sub-surface. All surfaces, no matter the apparent degree of separation, must travel at the same constant speed. No matter in which direction one looks, one will only ever see a plethora of real surfaces and those surfaces must all be traveling at the same constant speed or else it would be physically impossible for one to observe them instantly and simultaneously. Real surfaces are easy to spot because they are well lighted. Real light does not travel far from its source as can be confirmed by looking at the real stars, or a real lightning bolt. Reflected light needs to adhere to a surface in order for it to be observed, which means that real light cannot have a surface of its own. Real light must be the only stationary substance in the real Universe. The stars remain in place due to astral radiation. The planets orbit because of atmospheric accumulation. There is no space.

Warm regards,

Joe Fisher

Dear Lorraine,

I do think you would enjoy Berlinski's book.

You ask the tough questions - the physical basis of pi. If I had to guess, I would not assign it to the existence of the static circle (Platonic form) but to the fact that moving mass and charge induce a surrounding circulation (gravitomagnetic or electromagnetic) which entails and implies (?) pi. This is only a wild guess but I find a dynamic solution preferable to a static solution, and I find these physical behaviors some of the most relevant from the moment of the Big Bang until this present moment. But we'll probably never know the genesis of pi.

If my hypothesis of the genesis of pi were correct, it would also tie it to Planck's constant, which is a truly physical constant. And possibly to 'c' as well. This makes it more attractive to me, and I had not previously thought of this aspect of the problem, so thank you for asking that question.

My very best,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Dear Lorraine,

Thank you for not reporting my comment to FQXi.org as being inappropriate and have the Moderator classify it as Obnoxious Spam.

You know there is nothing abstract about physical reality. Unfortunately, all of the philosophers and physicists who have ever lived have only believed in abstraction.

Gratefully,

Joe Fisher

Your connection of things looks tedious in different areas, but you relate and vary at the same time.

- With regards,

Miss. Sujatha Jagannathan

Lorraine, your essay made me think about foundational framing issues from a bird's-eye perspective, and to realize we have to think about the minds doing the wondering about the world. We can't just take our math and run with it. Your essay is underrated! I hope you'll take a look at mine, I start with a rather technical physics argument but end by addressing the same sort of foundational questions. Cheers.

Dear Lorraine,

I think Newton was wrong about abstract gravity; Einstein was wrong about abstract space/time, and Hawking was wrong about the explosive capability of NOTHING.

All I ask is that you give my essay WHY THE REAL UNIVERSE IS NOT MATHEMATICAL a fair reading and that you allow me to answer any objections you may leave in my comment box about it.

Joe Fisher

Dear Lorraine,

In principle, we agree math is not everything in physics. Especially in your section 2.5. You wrote: ''nothing truly new is happening because ''anything that ever comes out was already contained in your starting point ''[19] initial conditions and law-of-nature rules.'' This is very similarly as I wrote in my prolonged version of FQXi essay. I claim, that Tononi's model of consciousness does not give anything new, because everything it is determined with initial conditions. But free will changes, what is determined with initial conditions. Thus free will is my correction to Tononi's model. And, free will is consequence of quantum randomness, by me.

According to your behind-the-scene calculations I disagree, although you gave deep arguments. One argument is that quantum computers calculates faster quantum calculations.The another is that analoguous (nondigital) computers also exist. The third my reason is that I think our universe is like virtual reality. I cannot yet give perfect anti-argument against you, but I will think about this. However, your section 2.5 is more important about our agreement:disagreement.

As I wrote in my essay, I guessed that logic is more important than math, because all physics can be simulated in binary computer. I think that space time and matter have finite information. But, linear structures (also ratios) are primary in physics. What do you think about this, esspecially in connection with your section 2.4? What do you think about essay of Kevin Knuth? What about Russell, who proved that 1+1=2?

However we agree, that pure consciousness cannot be describe with math.

my essay

Best regards

Janko Kokosar